MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884010841 · doi:10.1007/s10811-018-1541-z

Inter-laboratory validation of the serial dilution culture—most probable number method for enumerating viable phytoplankton

2018· article· en· W2884010841 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh L. MacIntyre, John J. Cullen, Shannah Rastin, Magdalena Waclawik, Kimberly J. Franklin, Nicole Poulton, Laura C. Lubelczyk, Kate McPhee, Tammi L. Richardson, Elise Van Meerssche, Brian Petri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Phycology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsTrojan Technologies (Canada)Dalhousie University
FundersUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsPhytoplanktonEnumerationDilutionBiologySerial dilutionFood scienceEcologyMathematicsNutrientMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most probable number (MPN) assay is used to enumerate viable phytoplankton in the 10–50 μm size range for Type Approval of ballast water management systems. However, its validation has been questioned by the United States Coast Guard, which does not accept it as an alternative to its required method. To address key elements of method validation, three research laboratories used the same experimental protocols to enumerate viable organisms from uniformly viable and heat-killed cultures of three species of phytoplankton. Statistical analysis of the ratio of MPN estimates of viable organisms to measurements from flow cytometry was consistent with predictions based on perfect adherence to the method’s assumptions. These include reliable detection of all viable organisms and no false-positive results. The validation confirmed established estimates of the MPN method’s precision and demonstrated reproducibility, having been transferred to and implemented by two of the laboratories for the first time.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhycologySame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207